Bishan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
- SCC(1996) 10 SCC 461
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2670
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a member of the disciplined police force presents a legitimate grievance to a superior officer through a peaceful representation, even if such representation involves violation of a prohibitory order, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate and unwarranted; a lesser penalty such as stoppage of one increment is the appropriate measure of discipline. The right to make representations for redressal of legitimate grievances is not forfeited by membership in a disciplined force, and disciplinary action must be proportionate to the nature of the misconduct and the circumstances in which it occurred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated May 7, 1991 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh made in RSA No. 2260/80. The admitted facts are that three appellants along with 27 others had gone in a procession, in spite of the prohibitory order, to represent, to the Superintendent of Police at his residence, their grievance of inadequate accommodation and other facilities not provided to them. That was done after their duty was over in the evening. For the making of such representation and for violating the prohibitory order, an enquiry was conducted against the three appellants who had taken initiative and led the procession, making a charge that they were guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 16 [s] of the Punjab Police Rules which is held to have been proved; resultantly, they were dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was confirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the appellants filed suit for declaration that the order of dismissal was null and void and inoperative; the suit was decreed on April 7, 1979. On appeal, it was dismissed on February 20, 1980. In the second appeal, the High Court reversed the decisions and dismissed the suit. Thus this appeal by special leave.
4. It is true that the appellants are disciplined members of the police force. The grievance of inadequate accommodation provided to them is a legitimate grievance to be represented to the officer for its redressal. No doubt, prohibitory order was issued and there is violation thereof; however, the appellants marched peacefully to make their representation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that they have committed misconduct warranting extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is set aside. However, the respondents are directed to impose penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellants are entitled to reinstatement with all the consequential benefits. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free